Monday, 3 August 2009

Calling all 45 year old Kenyans

Like everyone else, I have no way of knowing whether Obama's so called "Kenyan Birth Certificate" which has been filed by crusading California attorney Orly Taitz (who's blog Google is currently trying to block with the old "This site may damage your computer" warning) is genuine.

However, I suspect that certain sections of the left wing media have made a mistake by hastily seeking to debunk the document on the basis that it refers to the the "Republic of Kenya". They point out, many of them referring to Wikipedia when doing so, that the document, is dated February 1964, whereas Kenya did not declare itself as a Republic until December 1964, 10 months later.

However, as with so much left wing propaganda this claim shows a deal of contempt for its readers and depends on the belief that ordinary (non-media) people cannot, or do not, think.

Britain granted Kenya independence in December 1963 as part of a lengthy hand over period. Following the official relinquishing of British power in December 1963, there was a 12 month transition period, during which Kenya retained a protected status and was known as "The Dominion of Kenya". However, this was a formality, Kenya gained its independence with great excitement and (sadly unfulfilled) optimism in 1963, and the one year transition period was a device enabling the change over to take place. The declaration in December 1964 was the end of the process not the beginning.

Think of what is involved in the re-branding of even a relatively small company in 2009, and then translate that to the launching of a sovereign African state, albeit one which was, back then, as prosperous as South Korea, 45 years ago, when for instance government stationery was still produced by printing presses. Add to that the fact that all these arrangements were overseen by the British in the lead up to December 1963, and it is quite clear how much advance preparation would have been made.

We also can not forget both human psychology and, of course, the politics of the time, when surely it would have been politically untenable for official government documentation to still carry the statement "Crown colony" or, equally worse, "Dominion" after the country had declared itself a republic with great fanfare a few months after the Obama Certificate was signed. Meanwhile, prematurely declaring itself a Republic would have been widely applauded.

What I understand, and would like to be in a position to prove (or even disprove), is that Kenya began calling itself a republic as soon as it was independent and was styling itself a Republic as early as the beginning of 1964. The re-printing of stationery, such as that used to produce the Birth Certificate, had already been started under the British, who were very paternalistic when handing over their ex-colonies. Who would blame a newly independent nation from using it right away, rather than wasting huge amounts of money on producing documentation with a one year life span and which carried the demeaning title "Dominion"?

I know that a lot of African residents and ex-patriots do read this blog, if any of those are aged 44 to 45 and were born in Kenya in 1964 (preferably Mombasa) I would be grateful if they would look out their old birth certificate and tell me what it says at the bottom. (if you are older but were married in Kenya in 1964 do you still have your marriage certificate?) If you wish to do so, you can either respond to this post, or write to me at I promise I will not publish anything without your consent, largely I just want to satisfy myself as to the facts.

The details given above are as I understand what happened, as I believe it happened and certainly make more sense than either of the alternatives, which it is worth repeating are:

  • The newly independent Kenya was content to carry on using Imperial branded documents
  • They would produce short term documentation with a twelve month life span for use in all government offices, including those in provincial towns like Mombasa. Documentation, don't forget using a humiliating term like "Dominion"
However, there is a difference between what I believe, and what I can prove, and that is why I need your help.

Lets see if we can debunk the debunkers.

On a possibly connected issue, is it just me, or does it seem a suspicious to you that right after that document has appeared, Hilary Clinton should suddenly find a pressing reason to fly to Kenya and meanwhile the Kenya Constitution website is all of a sudden "being converted"?


Dr.D said...

Very interesting post, Sarah. Thank you. It will be interesting to see what it brings in.

Griblett said...

Sarah, your link to Dr. Taitz's blog doesn't go anywhere (Error 404).

This is the correct link:

Orly Taitz

You still get the warning page come up.

MrsJ said...

Hi Sarah,

The birth certificate has now been debunked as an altered copy of an Australian birth certificate.

See here:

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Hi Mrs J

Yes I know, it appears to have been a hoax created deliberately to discredit the "birthers", It makes one wonder why someone would go to so much trouble to discredit them though doesn't it?!!

Dr.D said...

@ MrsJ
While this may well be correct in this case, Snopes is not a reliable source. It is run by Leftists, and I have personally caught them out on issues where they clearly had an ax to grind. They should not be trusted.

MrsJ said...

Dr. D: I agree with you about Snope's political leanings, but the evidence is shown on the post.

I've tracked down the original, so I don't think it's a 're-forgery'.

Shame. I'd love it to be genuine.